get_authenticated_user

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that private fields are visible only to the token owner and are subject to token scope, which is a key behavioral nuance. It also identifies the GITHUB_TOKEN as the authentication mechanism. This exceeds a minimal description, though it could mention error scenarios or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the action and resource, then adds the key distinction from a sibling tool, and ends with a relevant documentation link. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how it differs from a similar tool, and the authentication/scope conditions. The included documentation link allows deeper exploration if needed. No essential context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and provides no semantic information. The description therefore carries no parameter burden. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'profile of the currently authenticated user', and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool get_user_by_username by noting it returns private fields in addition to public ones. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: when needing the authenticated user's own profile with private fields. It contrasts with get_user_by_username, providing a clear alternative, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives. The context is clear enough for most use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.